Monday, February 16, 2009

Pulling the Cosmos Together with All the Eternity that's Fit to Print

Something's going around here in Tonga. Been fighting off a cold since Friday, and at the moment it's pretty much of draw, which for me is a victory. I've been using Zicam religulously, and so far it's working. My colds used to be much more unpleasant before I discovered this highly effective placebo a couple of years ago.

Still, there is a subtle effect on the body, mind and spirit, so I'm not sure how far we'll get today. I remember Sri Aurobindo mentioning that he was actually able to transform any sensation into a pleasant and/or interesting one, just by hovering above and observing. Until he shattered his thigh bone in 1938. He said he wasn't able to detach himself from that one. Must have been like Spiderman 2, when Peter jumps off the building and lands on a car below. Even the b'atman has his limits.

So, diving right back into the Balthasar may be temporarily beyond my capacities. At least until I'm warmed up. Anyway, at the moment, I'm pondering something James wrote about, Atheism as Negation. Which, leaving its intrinsic merits aside, is an interesting thing in itself, for why waste your time trying to negate that which does not exist?

I remember when I started doing this blog, it was with the idea of turning the cosmos upside down and inside out (back to its proper orientation), and then publishing "All the Eternity That Fits." I mean, we are not just totally saturated with news sources, but with news itself. In other words, it is not just the epistemology of news that concerns us, but the ontology. "The news" -- at least in its present configuration -- would have to represent the polar opposite of "the eternals." It fixes us to the transient in the same way that Sri Aurobindo's broken leg fixed him to the body.

But just as the body has a soul (or rather, vice versa), the "news" is a function of eternity (for the converse could never be true). And if we ignore the eternity pole of the dialectic, news turns into what it has become, a kind of "reverse mysticism," a hypnotic fascination with the transient and trivial, so you end up leaving the frontier of O, the wild godhead, for the disjointed necropolis of Ø. Good luck with that.

Of course, it is always possible to sift through the news for its eternal patterns and lessons, but how often does that occur? Not often, because you can't just be a journalist, but an artist, seer, or visionary of some kind. I think of James Joyce, who demonstrated in Ulysses the "temporal resonance" that occurs on a moment to moment basis, as the otherwise banal events of daily life resonate with our metamythological and transtemporal substrate. That's always occurring, but it takes activated cʘʘnvision to see it.

I believe I touched on this in the new testavus -- something about how the modern world and its nihilocracy of urgent nonsense forces us to dance to its jagged rhythms instead of abiding within the dudely hammock of eternity. For let's face it: to recoil from one of Petey's parables, "only the rug of eternity can pull your temporal room together." (Image courtesy Ace of Spades.)

Think about it. To the extent that you cannot do that, I think you'll find that it is because you've likely internalized "the world," which in turn displaces vertical reality. Hence the children's nursery rhyme, "there's nothing wronga' / than exile from Tonga."

The bottom lyin' is that if you live at the periphery instead of the center, the finest area rug in the world cannot redeem time and coordinate it with eternity. It has never happened, and never will happen, with any manmade philosophy. Only God can do that, through us. You might even say that we are God's cosmic "area rug," in that only human beings have the unique capacity to span all of creation, from the highest state of consciousness to the lowest state of queeghood.

Speaking of which, can Darwinism do this -- pull the cosmos together? Don't make me laugh! Darwinism tries to coordinate the world by making it all black. So yes, it does "pull the room together," but at the cost of making it a colorless, two-dimensional room that is no longer fit for human habitation.

For the metaphysical Darwinist forgets that the human subject requires a human environment in order to thrive and evolve. Or, to turn it around: fail to raise humans in their proper soul-environment, and they will internally die (and quite possibly kill, as a way to obtain a spurious, vampiric sense of life). Or, to put it another way, they will die to eternity and therefore chuck their very reason for being. This, my friends, is the evil of Queeg. Yes, his intentions are good, like a legally blind man doing his best to drive an automobile. But he is without a doubt a tool and puppet of the adversary, the hostile forces: →(¶)←.

Now, back to James' and his ponderful little post. You often hear atheists -- in fact, a number have left such comments here -- saying that they are atheists for the simple reason that they do not believe pink fairies live under their bed, or some similar barbarism. But as James writes, "Consider an atheism that is just the absence of God from one's normal everyday consciousness. In my own case, this would involve giving God no more thought than pink elephants, Zeus, or the genocide in Burundi."

Think about that for a moment. I also don't believe that pink fairies live under my bed. Frankly, I never think about pink fairies, and to the extent that other people believe they exist, I would just conclude that they are crazy, and leave it at that. I would hardly waste time writing lengthy treatises on why pink fairies do not exist, largely because mental illness is not susceptible to reason. If you fail to understand this, then you could certainly never be a psychotherapist. The whole point of mental illness is that it involves self-defeating beliefs, actions, traits and emotional states that persist outside any conscious control.

Sure, I could get into an argument with my patient, and try to "prove" to him that his thinking is all wrong. But this would get me precisely nowhere. In fact, this is the whole reason why psychoanalysis developed to begin with, because of a new appreciation of the irrational in human life, smack dab in the middle of the new positivistic "age of reason" that should have eliminated it.

In fact, this is also why the Romantics began to romanticize mental illness, for at least it was preferable to living like a Darwinian reason-machine, divorced from the deeper wellspring of our humanness. It's also why so many people reject Darwinism -- not because of the science, which is what it is, but because of the infrahuman metaphysics they're always trying to ram down our throats.

In truth, no amount of Darwinian magical thinking can eliminate that deeper -- and higher -- wellspring of our humanness. But it can never stop trying, precisely because of the persistence of that wellspring. This is why you should never believe one of these atheists who says he doesn't believe in pink fairies, for in fact, he can't stop thinking about them. It is the properly religious person who has left such childish beliefs behind.

One other point I'd like to make, although I'm not yet sure how it ties into the above. But James Cutsinger has a blog (if you go there, be very quiet -- I get the sense that, like me, he doesn't really want to publicize it that much and attract the wrong types).

As I have mentioned, a fair number of people contact me, asking about this or that spiritual technique, but my answer is always the same. I'm not saying that mine is the only way, but I always let them know that I made no progress until I abandoned "self power" for "(O)ther power." In other words, I finally surrendered and turned myself in to the authorities.

Now, to reference the aforementioned atheist, you could say that I effortlessly think about "pink fairies" all the time. It doesn't require any effort, but the abandonment of effort. In this regard, Cutsinger advises his correspondent to give up his intense effort and to "to escape the illusion that everything somehow depends on us." He then quotes Schuon, who wrote in a letter that,

“What matters a priori is not that we know how to concentrate; what matters is that we love to practice the Invocation…. It is better to invoke with joy while being a little distracted by harmless thoughts than to invoke without joy because the effort of concentration prevents one from being happy. It is necessary to guard against a perfectionism that is angry and ambitious, and basically individualistic; it is necessary to guard against all ‘zeal of bitterness’. It is better to invoke with carefreeness, like a bird which sings or like a child at play. Holy carefreeness readily combines with the sense of the sacred, thanks to confidence in God. Metaphysical knowledge and holy childlikeness must go hand in hand: ‘extremes meet’."

So, to tie it all together: stop trying so hard to tie it all together. You can't do it anyway. Plus, it's already tied together. You don't have to create God, any more than you have to beat your heart or digest your food. Just relux and call it a deity. Abide. Soon enough the pink fairies will roost in your back yard.

39 comments:

This ties in perfectly with Walt's post today. And since the comment I posted there is just about what I would have posted here, I'm going to just repeat it:That inner/outer correspondence-That's the tough one. It's a feedback loop that, for me anyway, is often just plain toxic. Stuff on the outside feeds anger to the the inside which makes the outside stuff that much less bearable. And the reverse is happening at the same time- Anger inside colors my reaction to the outside world, which makes it all that much easier to get angry. Feedback loop.And, as I get older, stress seems to feed directly into the physical realm. Hence the ruinous headache yesterday.And you know what really gets me- is when I hear someone say something like: Breathe deeply, and reach for your center... or worse: Pray, and turn it over to God...I know in my head that this may well be tried, and true advice; that wiser people than I have discovered these techniques. But once that anger comes on line it's like someone telling you, "Don't be sad, or Don't let it get you all upset". Gee, thanks. Why didn't I think of that?It's like trying to balance a marble on a pinhead. Yes, it is possible. but that doesn't make it do-able.I don't know. I guess it's all just part of the struggle. That's why I made the comment about the hermit with the unsavory background the other day at Walt's blog. It seems like so much of this stuff can get into your head, but bringing it down to the gut is a different story.

"Which, leaving its intrinsic merits aside, is an interesting thing in itself, for why waste your time trying to negate that which does not exist?"

I feel that often times people think that believing is the norm, and to deviate from that there must be a counter-norm. Atheists are the minority, so as a minority they must stand against to show what they are for. If Atheism were the norm, atheists wouldn't feel a need to negate religion, it would just be easily dismissed.

Think about when an older child tries to convince a very stubborn younger child that Santa does not exist. Why would the older child attempt to negate something that doesn't exist?

Anonymous,your theory has been tested and found wrong. Here in the Socialist Workers' Paradise of Norway, only about a quarter of the population are believers, and many of those are elderly; amont the young, it is about one out of ten.

JWM, I found Neil Anderson's books helpful with that dilemma. I'm re-reading his book "Victory over the Darkness" for myself lately. "How do we walk in the Spirit? That is probably one of the most difficult topics to get a handle on." No kidding! That has been the question of my life. I've found a lot of practical help in his explanations of scripture.

I think a kind of rubicon is crossed when one no longer looks at spirit, but spirit becomes that with which one looks, because it has been internalized and assimilated. One then goes from "religion" to spontaneous "religioning," so to spook.

Speaking of the dudely hammock...Anderson: "There's a sense of mystery here that we will never fully understand. The apostle John said: 'The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is every one who is born of the Spirit' (John 3:8). Trying to reduce life in the Spirit to a formula is like trying to capture the wind. Perhaps we will do best just to, as one man said, 'pull in the oars and put up the sail.' Instead of trying so hard to nail down all the details of the spiritual life, let's focus on trusting Christ and let Him move us along in the right direction." Much of his book is about learning who you are in Christ, and simply believing that. The rest is about fighting the spiritual battle for your mind, and staying in step with the Spirit. But he does provide some very practical steps.

>>So, to tie it all together: stop trying so hard to tie it all together<<

Aka, let go and let God. There is the parable of the Zen ****. Guy becomes monk, tries his best, for years. to achieve enlightenment, fails. Finally he throws in the towel, leaves the monastery, figuring he just wasn't cut out for enlightenment. On the way home, he visits a prostitute and voila! -Enlightenment!

( this is simply a parable, folks - and now that you know it, it won't work for you)

Anyway - I think that sometimes one must make the effort, in some way or other, in order that the effort exhaust itself. And then there are certain individuals who, when faced with a spiritual crisis, must take heaven by storm, by violence - and the effort pays off. Jacob Boehme was such an individual.

By the way, another kind of rubicon is crossed when one begins taking the abstractions of science for the concrete reality they describe. One then lives in a wholly abstract world, divorced from the real -- and any possible contact with concrete spirit.

Good stuff today Bob. Reminds me of a woman who's professed goal in life was to be happy joyous and free, a possibility in even the most dire of circumstances when turned over to the appropriate authorities.On the topic of colds, when I feel the viral/bacterial gremlins setting up shop in the deepest recesses of my nasal cavities, I just take a couple good snorts of that nasal saline solution found in most any store. I like cheap, easy and effective.

I can relate to what JWM says about surrendering the negative: it is difficult to over-ride the emotions of anger, dismay, fear, dread, and general disgust. They have a persistent and repeitive power that overweens the will and defies surrender.

For example, I just lost a substantial sum of money by making an extrememly stupid mistake. I can't seem to stop the negative thoughts about this. I have surrendered it numerous times, drawn lessons from it, related it to the larger scheme of things, and thanked God for his tutorial.

Yet, the dsyphoria about it defies liquidation. What does it take to get control of negtative thinking?

Persistence? I plan to just out-endure it. But life can be a byotch, even in paradise. Sheesh.

I remember Sri Aurobindo mentioning that he was actually able to transform any sensation into a pleasant and/or interesting one, just by hovering above and observing. Until he shattered his thigh bone in 1938.

Come to think of it, a lot of news is like that.

I recall the time you said Fox News was populist, Bob. Before that, I pretty much filtered out the biased and undesirable stuff.

But after that, nearly the entire experience was like that shattered thigh bone, as opposed to a shattered skeleton with say, MSNBC or CNN or the Networkers Socialist Union Of Idiots.

But even though it was only a shattered thigh it still sucked. So now I rarely watch it, except for Cavuto, who seems to be the sanest of the lot nowadays.

Anyway, just wanted to say you were right (but you knew that), and once I started payin' more attention, it was even more so.

Nowadays it seems a lot worse than it was then. The "questions" they ask are downright banal and would never even occur to me. Urgent nonsense indeed!

Thanks Bob, I needed this boost up and the Zicam tip. That pushed my Amazon total into the frugal, free ship zone. Now on its way: Amco Swing-A-Way Wall Can Opener; Zicam and "Abandonment to Divine Providence".

"This is why you should never believe one of these atheists who says he doesn't believe in pink fairies, for in fact, he can't stop thinking about them. It is the properly religious person who has left such childish beliefs behind."

Bingo!

Even back when I was a complete non-believer, I was always skeptical and suspicious of those who not only defined themselves as 'atheist', but spent such huge efforts denouncing those who didn't unbelieve as they did. Something very off there.

I was reading an essay on John Milton lastnight by a fellow named Walter Bagehot (printed on actual paper, don't know if there's a link), critical of Milton's aescetic character... lots of good points in it, but this one seems fitting here for this, "People who labor much will be cross if they do not obtain that for which they labor; those who desire vehemently will be vexed if they do not obtain that which they desire. As is the strength of the impelling tendency, so, other things being equal, is the pain which it will experience if it be baffled."

It's not other people believing in theism that atheists are animated and agitated by, its other people not agreeing with what they believe, and the more they realize that, the more frantic their atheism becomes.

"So, to tie it all together: stop trying so hard to tie it all together. You can't do it anyway. Plus, it's already tied together. You don't have to create God, any more than you have to beat your heart or digest your food. Just relux and call it a deity. Abide."

Petey said..."I think a kind of rubicon is crossed when one no longer looks at spirit, but spirit becomes that with which one looks, because it has been internalized and assimilated. One then goes from "religion" to spontaneous "religioning," so to spook."

According to scripture (e.g. Romans 1:18-32), there are simply believers and unbelievers. Everyone knows there is a God, for “that which is known about Him is evident within them; for He made it evident to them.” Believers “honor Him as God and give thanks.” Unbelievers “suppress the truth in unrighteousness.” Unbelievers “exchange the truth of God for a lie, and worship and serve the created rather than the Creator.”“Professing to be wise, they become fools”, “futile in their speculations, their foolish hearts darkened.”Finally, at some point (only God knows when), He apparently “gives them over” to their sin and “a depraved mind”, and although they know that those who practice sin “are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who do the same.”

I go back again to JWM’s great recent link (thanks again, btw), Science, Religion, and the Human Future, “There is, of course, nothing novel about this form of reductionism, materialism, and determinism; these are doctrines with which Socrates contended long ago. What is new is that, as philosophies, they seem (to many people) to be vindicated by scientific advance. Here, in consequence, would be the most pernicious result of our technological progress, a result more dehumanizing than any actual manipulation or technique, present or future: the erosion, perhaps the final erosion, of the idea of man as noble, dignified, precious, or godlike, and its replacement with a view of man, no less than of nature, as mere raw material for manipulation and homogenization.”

Either you love the Light and seek to live in all His colors…or you fade to black.

It seems to me that the lazy, conditioned, or simple-minded non-believer will rarely stay forever in his agnostic stasis. There will usually be some point when he will either seek the Light or become determined to suppress it.

As Leon Kass says, all of this has nothing to do with the supposed impact of modern science on theistic propositions. It has nothing to do with reason.

The "reason" of Darwinism does not produce atheism.Atheism produces the rationalization of Darwinism.

If anyone could have been said to have achieved a kind of mental/emotional "perfection" via willpower, it would have been Gurdjieff. He could perform all kinds of weird magical stunts and convincingly present himself as a master.

But he was not enlightened and he knew it, which is why he drove his car into a tree in an attempt to break his own willpower and low-level mastery over self.

I think genuine spiritual mastery is a giving up of lusts. The final lust to be surrendered is the lust for God.

Yes, apropos of what Will just said, like the jazz musician, it takes a lot of effort to play so effortlessly. This we call "higher non-doodling."

I was going to send this to you off-channel, Bob, but it's pertinent enough to share - the latest issue of Keyboard mag is devoted to jazz and explores the effort of making the effortless Kind of Blue sessions with emphasis on Bill Evans' input.

McCoy Tyner discusses higher non-doodling, as well. For example:

"I don't actually practice that much. When I have a session coming up, I usually like to write new songs. Unless I'm making a conscious effort to do a record of standards, I prepare by creating new material. This is improvised music. You put creativity and spontaneity into it. For me composing is like playing - you're just slowing it down and putting different things together."

Thanks for the link to Cutsinger's blog. Some interesting posts there. I thought his post "The Essence of Christianity" interesting (http://www.cutsinger.net/wordpress2/?p=118)

"We’ve learned in this course that a transcendent and yet immanent Mystery, than which nothing greater can be thought, whose center is everywhere and circumference nowhere, is (even as we speak) emptying Itself into our world and ourselves, at once (1) creatively and (2) re-creatively, bringing us and all things into existence from the No-Thing It is while at the same time redeeming and restoring those who, inevitably and yet reprehensibly, are falling away into a nothing It is not.

Now it is up to those who are falling away to respond, and this they do in two ways: (1) through their faith that the world-restoring operations of the Mystery have already achieved their goal; (2) through their recognition that, paradoxically, they are nonetheless responsible for achieving this very goal for themselves, which they can do by mirroring the operations of the Mystery, willingly emptying themselves into It even as It empties Itself into them, in order that finally they might become what It is."

For anyone who might be interested, on Cutsinger's website he has a download of his lectures available (here, under "Readings"). It's 191 pages; I haven't read it, having just found it, but I bet there might be some gems hidden inside.

What About Bob?

Who spirals down the celestial firepole on wings of slack, seizes the wheel of the cosmic bus, and embarks upin a bewilderness adventure of higher nondoodling? Who, haloed be his gnome, loiters on the threshold of the transdimensional doorway, looking for handouts from Petey? Who, with his doppelgägster and testy snideprick, Cousin Dupree, wields the pliers and blowtorch of fine insultainment for the ridicure of assouls? Who is the gentleman loaffeur who yoinks the sword from the stoned philosopher and shoves it in the breadbasket of metaphysical ignorance and tenure? Whose New Testavus for the Restavus blows the locked doors of the empyrean off their rusty old hinges and sheds a beam of intense darkness on the world enigma? Who is the Biggest Fakir of the Vertical Church of God Knows What, channeling the roaring torrent of 〇 into the feeble stream of cyberspace? Who is the masked pandit who lobs the first water balloon out the motel window at the annual Raccoon convention? Who is your nonlocal partner in disorganized crimethink? Shut your mouth! But I'm talkin' about bʘb! Then we can dig it!